Best Pictures #6: 1927-28 (1st) Academy Awards: Outstanding Picture Nominee, The Racket (1928)

by A.J.

1927-28 (1^st) Academy Awards Outstanding Picture Nominee

The Racket (1928)

The silent crime film The Racket was based on a popular Broadway play which starred Edward G Robinson as a mob boss. Robinson was subsequently brought to Hollywood by Warner Brothers to star in several of their gangster pictures, while the rights to the play were purchased by Howard Hughes. The film was produced for the Caddo Company and Paramount Famous-Lasky under the direction of Lewis Milestone, but without Robinson. The story centers upon honest policeman captain McQuigg and his clash with the powerful gangster Scarsi, who is protected by corrupt politicians. The implied setting of the film is Chicago, though the city is not named, and mob boss Nicholas Scarsi is a reference to real life Chicago gangster Al Capone, who was nicknamed “Scarface.” Both the play and film portray Chicago’s politicians as corrupt and police force as ineffective, as well as corrupt. The Racket was a hit with audiences and critics, but it was banned in Chicago (the play had also been banned by the city).

Though The Racket was a hit at the time, I think that this film stands out among all the nominees as being least worthy of a nomination – in either of the “best picture” categories. Straight away the movie has a conventional look and feel that lacks the artistic flair of the Unique and Artistic nominees, or even the other two Outstanding Picture nominees. There is one interesting visual effect in a scene set at a gangster’s funeral: as Scarsi looks at all of the other gangsters holding hats on their laps, the hats dissolve away to reveal that the men are all holding guns under their hats, ready to shoot. Aside from that moment, and a quick shot using silhouettes of police officers in the station, the cinematography is not noteworthy. In a film as dialogue and plot-heavy as this one, a degree of visual style is essential for keeping the viewer engaged.   

The film begins with Captain McQuigg and Scarsi not-so-casually meeting after McQuigg has been involved in a shooting. The two have obviously met before and they refer to each other by their nicknames: Mac (for McQuigg) and Nick (for Nicholas Scarsi). Scarsi makes a few gestures to try to charm McQuigg. He tells the policeman to stay clear of a street corner where Scarsi’s men plan to rob a rival gang and also invites McQuigg to his kid brother’s birthday party. We then see each man go to his office where it is clear each one is the boss of his respective racket. Scarsi’s office is in a brewery with bootleg barrels of alcohol. McQuigg’s office is, naturally, the police station. McQuigg later shows up to the street corner he was warned about where there is a shootout and he arrests one of Scarsi’s men. McQuigg eventually arrests Scarsi, but the gangster uses his political connections to get himself and his men freed from jail and to get McQuigg transferred.

As soon as there are reports of a shootout, the press arrive and they offer good comic relief. There is a humorous scene of reporters from rival newspapers sizing each other up, all of them trying to get the scoop on McQuigg’s sudden transfer. The reporters are all hoping for something to spark another fight between Scarsi and McQuigg, even if they have to start it themselves.

The Racket is a top-heavy film; the scenes on the streets and in night clubs, as well as the shootouts and car chases are all in the first half of the film. Once the arrests are made, McQuigg hatches a plan to put Scarsi away once and for all before his transfer, but the action and pace of the film go into low gear. The film begins to resemble a stage play with the plot advancing through dialogue, rather than action, and the characters are confined to a couple of different rooms making the film visually uninteresting. Throughout, the film uses mostly medium and wide shots, which sometimes makes it difficult to tell which characters are speaking, especially since the policemen all wear uniforms and the reporters and gangsters are dressed in similar-looking suits and hats. Since there are few to no close ups, it is difficult to distinguish the faces of minor characters. This is all very unfortunate since the story in the last half of the film depends so heavily upon the dialogue.

It was very difficult to find a copy of The Racket. For many years it was considered a lost film, but after Howard Hughes’s death the only existing print was found in his film collection along with another film he produced, Two Arabian Nights (also directed by Milestone in a more interesting style). It was restored by the film department of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and occasionally airs on TCM. The only copy I could track down is part of a DVD collection of early Best Picture nominees called Academy Collection: The Envelope Please Vol. 1. I could find no other legitimate sources for watching The Racket, aside from catching it on TCM whenever it happens to air. The picture quality is not very clean, but it is acceptable; however, there is a DVD distributor watermark in the lower left hand corner of the film, which, while unobtrusive, is still annoying.

I wonder what about this film struck a chord with audiences and critics of the time? Perhaps it was The Racket’s portrayal of the ubiquitous crime and corruption caused by Prohibition, which was then in effect. Because the story was inspired by news and events of the day, it probably felt unfortunately true-to-life and had an immediate resonance. It shows an honest man’s struggle against seemingly insurmountable corruption and how trying to change just one part of the system means taking on the whole machine. But it’s all in a day’s work for good policemen like McQuigg.

Nominee: The Caddo Company, Paramount Famous-Lasky

Producer: Howard Hughes

Director: Lewis Milestone

Screenplay: Bartlett Cormack, based on his stage play; scenario by Del Andrews

Cast: Thomas Meighan, Louis Wolheim, Marie Prevost

Release Date: November 1^st, 1928

Total Nominations: 1, including Outstanding Picture

Best Pictures #3: 1927-28 (1st) Academy Awards, Unique & Artistic Picture* Nominee, The Crowd (1928)

by A.J.

1927-28 (1st) Academy Awards, Unique & Artistic Picture* Nominee

The Crowd (1928)

The story of King Vidor’s silent film The Crowd sounds simple and familiar: the joys and tragedies of a married couple as they struggle to get by in the modern world. However, a movie like this, with such subject matter and of such quality, is a rare thing even today. This film was a passion project for Vidor. Irving Thalberg, head of production at MGM, believed that occasionally films should be made for prestige instead of profit, and since Vidor had directed many hits for MGM, Thalberg greenlit The Crowd.

The Crowd is a film in two parts. The first half is an optimistic romantic comedy. John Simms grows up believing and telling everyone that he is destined for great things. As a young adult, he moves to New York City. He has a job in a skyscraper and meets Mary on a double date. They quickly fall in love and things are great, for a while. We expect a bright future for John and Mary, just like they do; one filled with happy times and easy to solve problems. The second half of the movie is a heavy drama about married life. John and Mary are befallen by small troubles like broken appliances, unfriendly in-laws, and a frustrating day at the beach followed by larger troubles like a lost job, money problems, and a painful tragedy. John’s daydreams and Mary’s pragmatism are an ill match for each other and strain their marriage more and more.

When John arrived in New York harbor, a fellow traveler told him, “You’ve got to be good in that town if you want to beat the crowd.” To our main characters “the crowd” is every other faceless person in the city equally uninterested and unhelpful in their lives and problems. The only help John can hope to get is from himself, something he is painfully slow to realize. John is, of course, as much a part of “the crowd” as he is apart from it; every average person is the main character of their own life, unbeknownst to anyone else.

MGM studio head Louis B. Mayer thought The Crowd was depressing and “obscene” because of a scene that shows a toilet as John tries to fix the tank. Mayer hated this film and urged fellow Academy judges to vote against it. I cannot deny that The Crowd is a depressing film, but it is also an extraordinary one. It is a film of major defeats and small victories. It is not a spoiler to say that the film has a bittersweet ending. Not every problem is solved, but the characters are happy and smiling. Seven different endings were shot for The Crowd. Louis B. Mayer wanted the film to end at Christmas with John and Mary and their children living in a mansion; an ending that would have been wildly out of place and too absurdly positive to be meaningful. I cannot think of a more positive ending that still remains true to the film than the one used. There are only a few other films I can think of that feel as true to the simultaneously harsh and beautiful nature of everyday life.

King Vidor received a well-deserved nomination for Best Director, Dramatic Picture (there was also a Best Director, Comedy category). The Crowd is shot with such skill that it is clear the filmmakers are not only masters of their craft but also creative and inventive minds. In the most famous shot of the film, indeed one of the most famous shots in cinema, the camera pans up a monolithic skyscraper then dissolves to inside and glides over a sea of uniform and anonymous desks aligned in perfect rows before finally pushing in on the desk of John Simms #137. It is a truly beautiful piece of cinema and has been repeated in homage, albeit on a smaller scale, in Billy Wilder’s The Apartment (1960) and Cameron Crowe’s Jerry Maguire (1996). There are number of other visually interesting shots in The Crowd. On John and Mary’s date at Coney Island we see them and their friends slide down a big slide right towards the camera. The production design of the city is impressive and captivating. It is plain and void of character, but seems vast, futuristic, and imposing; it reminded me of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, also from 1927.

The Crowd is a rare kind of film which is powerful and moving while also entertaining. It is loaded with pathos and catharsis for audiences yesterday and today. The Crowd does all of this while being artistic, inventive, and thematically challenging. The Crowd is unfortunately a hard film to track down. It was never issued on DVD and is only available on VHS. However, there is hope for the preservation of this movie. It was one of the first films selected for preservation in the U.S. National Film Registry by the Library of Congress. A most wise choice.

Nominee: MGM

Producer: Irving Thalberg

Director: King Vidor

Screenplay: King Vidor & John V.A. Weaver

Cast: Eleanor Boardman, James Murray, Bert Roach

Release Date: February 18th, 1928

Total Nominations: 2, including Best Unique & Artistic Picture

Other Nominations: Director, Dramatic Picture- King Vidor

*The 1st Academy Awards had two categories for Best Picture: Unique & Artistic Picture and Outstanding Picture. The Outstanding Picture category is widely considered to be the forerunner to Best Picture since the Unique & Artistic Picture category was discontinued the following year. Since at the time each category was thought of as equally the top award I have included the Unique & Artistic Picture nominees as Best Picture nominees.

Best Pictures #2: 1927/28 (1st) Academy Awards, Unique & Artistic Picture Nominee: Chang: A Drama of the Wilderness (1927)

by A.J.

1927/28 (1^st) Academy Awards, Unique & Artistic Picture* Nominee:

Chang: A Drama of the Wilderness (1927)

Chang: A Drama of the Wilderness, a silent film from 1927, had only one nomination at the first Academy Awards for Unique and Artistic Picture. Since at the time of the first Academy Awards, the Unique & Artistic Picture category and the Outstanding Picture category were considered equal, Chang can be considered to be the only documentary ever nominated for Best Picture. Unique & Artistic Picture is certainly the right category for Chang because it is, if anything, a unique picture. Directors Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Shoedsack spent several months in the jungles of northern Siam learning about the native Lao people and their way of life in preparation for their documentary for Paramount Famous-Lasky. The result is an exciting and entertaining picture about Kru, a Lao tribesman, his family, and their daily struggles to live deep in the unconquerable jungle.

I think the best way to describe Chang is as a quasi-documentary since many, if not all, of the scenes are staged reenactments. Kru is a real Lao tribesman, he was the guide for Cooper and Shoedsack on their expedition in northern Siam. His children in the movie are his actual children, but his wife, Chantui, is actually the wife of a fellow tribesman. The Kru family home is a hut built on stilts deep in the jungle away from the main village. Lao homes are actually built on stilts to keep jungle animals out, but the house we see was built specifically for the film and the interior is a separate set. Staged reenactments were not uncommon in documentaries of the silent era; the technique was used notably in Nanook of the North from 1922, which is nearly universally thought of as the predecessor to modern documentaries. If audiences and critics at the time knew about the staging of scenes, they did not mind as Chang was a hit with both.

Many scenes in the movie are reenactments of things Cooper & Schoedsack witnessed, but did not capture on film. There is no scene that is a complete fabrication, except maybe for the scene of a monkey dropping coconuts on stampeding elephants which is the only scene of the movie not shot in Northern Siam (it was done in New York’s Central Park Zoo). Other moments of humor come from certain animals having their own dialogue cards. There was a script written for Chang, but it had to be thrown out due to the unpredictability of the wild jungle animals. The scenes with the jungle animals are the highlight and tragedy of Chang. Kru’s livestock is being killed by leopards, so he enlists the people from the main village to help him in a hunt. The hunting techniques used by the tribesmen are accurate; rifles, spears, deadfalls, pitfalls, and wooden decoy men are all deployed. The leopards and two tigers we see killed in the hunt are real animals that were killed for the film.

However, it should be noted that the Lao people do not kill tigers, according to the DVD commentary by filmmaker and author Rudy Behlmer. The Lao people believe tigers to be possessed by evil spirits that would exact horrible revenge on anyone who killed one, so the rate of death by tiger was very high for the villages of Northern Siam. They would only hunt a tiger if it carried off too many babies. Cooper told the natives that he would bear the responsibility for the deaths of the tigers and any vengeance the evil spirits would unleash. My only solace in seeing those leopards and tigers killed is that they actually were a menace to the people of the region and Cooper and Schoedsack were told by a missionary that the number of people killed by tigers had decreased greatly after their filming in the jungle was done.

Still, I find incredible excitement in the scenes with the tigers. First, a tiger emerges slowly from the dense jungle to drink from a stream. Later, we see a group of hunters running away from a tiger and climbing up a tree in a shot that is almost certainly staged. However, there is no way the wide shot of a hunter up in a tree with the tiger prowling below could be staged. In another shot the camera looks down from a tree and a tiger jumps up, its face filling the screen. A shot that feels even more dangerous when you realize that it was done without the aid of zoom lenses (there were none). Schoedsack was up in the tree on a platform setting up a different shot with his hand cranked camera when a tiger bounded up mere feet, if not inches, from the platform.

The climatic elephant stampede was achieved with much planning and cooperation between the filmmakers and the natives. The tribe used elephants that had been trained as livestock. A low angle shot looking up at the legs of stampeding elephants was captured by Schoedsack in a pit dug by the tribesmen and covered with logs and a low turret that they assured him would hold under the weight of elephants. Cooper and Schoedsack had respect for the native peoples and it shows from the amount of cooperation they received and in the portrayal of the Lao people. In an era of motion pictures when casual racism was, well, casual and political correctness was not even the wild idea of a fantasist, Cooper and Schoedsack show us a non-exploitative portrayal of a people and culture far from Hollywood.

Though scenes may be staged, Chang still creates an authentic feeling of the life of Kru and his family living in the jungle. And, yes, Chang should be thought of as a documentary. In some ways Chang can be looked at as a forerunner to Disney’s short nature documentaries of the 1950s and 60s and the current Disney Nature film series which create a familiar narrative from hours and hours of documentary footage and seek to impart a message of environmental awareness to the audience. Chang is the story of a family living a vastly different way of life than the audience, but also delivers the message that the jungle and nature in general, despite all of mankind’s innovations, is unconquerable. I can’t think of too many documentaries I’d describe as thrilling the way an adventure movie is thrilling while also being informative and entertaining. This is certainly not a well-known film, but fortunately it is readily available on DVD. The sense of adventure and awe of wild beasts and the untamable natural world that Cooper and Schoedsack capture here would be evoked six years later with incredible effect on a much grander, and completely fictional, scale in the duo’s 1933 film King Kong. 

Nominee: Paramount Famous-Lasky

Producer(s): Merian C. Cooper & Ernest B. Schoedsack 

Director(s): Merian C. Cooper & Ernest B. Schoedsack 

Screenplay: N/A

Cast: Kru, Chantui

Release Date: April 29th, 1927

Total Nominations: 1, including Unique & Artistic Picture

*The first Academy Awards had two categories for Best Picture: Unique & Artistic Picture and Outstanding Picture. The Outstanding Picture category is widely considered to be the forerunner to Best Picture since the Unique & Artistic Picture category was discontinued the following year. Since at the time each category was thought of equally as the top award, I have included the Unique & Artistic Picture nominees as Best Picture nominees.

Best Pictures #5: 1927-28 (1st) Academy Awards Outstanding Picture Nominee, 7th Heaven (1927)

by A.J.

1927-28 (1^st) Academy Awards Outstanding Picture Nominee

7^th Heaven (1927)

7^th Heaven received a total of 5 Academy Award Nominations, the most of any film at the 1^st Academy Awards. It had 3 wins for Best Actress-Janet Gaynor (her award was given for her performance in this and 2 other movies that year), Best Writing Adaptation-Benjamin Glazer, and for Best Director, Dramatic Picture-Frank Borzage. Borzage brings style and skill to the production of 7^th Heaven making this film worthy of its nominations. There may not be as much artistic use of the camera and memorable shots as in the Unique and Artistic Picture nominees, but there are still some visually impressive moments and a good story.  

In this silent film, Charles Farrell plays Chico, a sewer cleaner in Paris. He dreams of climbing the “Ladder of Courage” from the sewer to the stars. He sees himself as remarkable, full of courage, and destined to rise up out of the sewer. Janet Gaynor plays Diane, who flees her abusive, alcoholic sister and ends up on the streets where she is found by Chico. She tries to kill herself with Chico’s knife and though he says she’d be better off dead, he stops her. Diane’s sister is arrested and tries to get Diane arrested too, but Chico tells the police officer that Diane is his wife and that prevents her from being arrested, but now they have to pretend to be married until a police inspector follows up with them. Chico takes her to his apartment which is on the 7^th floor of the building. In an impressive shot, as Chico and Diane ascend up the stairs, the camera pans up each floor of the building. To create this shot a seven-story set was built and the camera placed on an elevator along the side to rise as the actors climbed the stairs. Chico tells Diane, “I work in the sewer—but I live near the stars!” and we see a pretty shot of city rooftops and the starry night sky. For this humble pair, this modest apartment filled with dreams is the titular 7^th Heaven.

The tone of 7^th Heaven is optimistic and sentimental, despite the obstacles the characters face. Chico and Diane at first just pretend to be married, but then actually do fall in love and his courage rubs off on her. She has the courage to stand up to her sister and to reach for happiness. Chico, an unrepentant atheist, begins to regain his faith slowly as his love for Diane grows and his fortunes take a turn for the better. He is awarded a job as a street washer by a bishop (who can do that apparently). It is a rise not only in occupation, but also in the social class. His neighbor Gobin can now be friends with him since he is also a street washer. Chico and Diane decide they want to get married for real, but then, seemingly out of nowhere, World War I breaks out and their plans for a happy future are suddenly threatened.

You have little doubt that things will turn out all right for Chico and Diane, but you still worry about them and wish the best for them. 7^th Heaven is a film full of hope and meant to uplift its audience. The characters are fully fleshed out, sympathetic people. Chico is arrogant, but likably so; he is a good natured, good hearted person. Diane is meek and timid, but also kind and loving. The themes and content in this film are not as challenging as The Crowd or Sunrise, but 7^th Heaven is no less effective or moving.

7^th Heaven is an adaptation of a play and it does what all good adaptations of stage plays should do: it gives us a version of the story that we could not experience by attending a stage performance. In the stage play when Chico first takes Diane to his apartment the curtain lowers and rises again on Chico’s 7^th floor apartment. In the scene after Chico stops Diane from killing herself we see Diane sitting head in hand utterly defeated in the foreground. In the background we see Chico from the waist down as he walks away from her, then turns back, then away again, then back to her again. The scenes of WWI, the Battle of the Marne specifically, are very impressive. The battalions of marching troops are real people and seeing that many extras assembled for a scene in a movie is quite a sight. The battle sequence uses miniatures, process shots, and matte paintings mixed with real actors to create the kind of grand spectacle you could only experience at the movies. The miniatures are the only special effect that has not aged well. Everything else about the battle sequence holds up well, even better when you remember that the visual effects were made almost 90 years ago.

7th Heaven has gone out of print on DVD, but, as of the time of this writing, is available to watch in its entirety on Youtube.com. I have not seen very many silent films, but I imagine that 7^th Heaven is what good but typical Hollywood melodrama was like. I do not mean to belittle the qualities of this movie, but merely note that 7^th Heaven was more likely to give audiences what they wanted to see -- characters bettering themselves and each other and overcoming obstacles with romance, some laughs, and a happy ending – rather than challenging their expectations. There is of course nothing wrong with that at all, as long as it is done well, and in 7^th Heaven it is done very well.

Nominee: Fox

Producer(s): William Fox, Sal M. Wurtzel

Director: Frank Borzage

Screenplay: Benjamin Glazer, based on a play by Austin Strong

Cast: Janet Gaynor, Charles Farrel, Ben Bard

Release Date: May 6^th, 1927

Total Nominations: 5, including Outstanding Picture

Wins: Actress-Janet Gaynor, Director-Frank Borzage, Writing, Adaptation-Benjamin Glazer

Other Nominations: Art Direction-Harry Cliver

Best Pictures #4: 1927-28 (1st) Academy Awards, Unique & Artistic Picture* Nominee, Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)

by A.J.

1927-28 (1^st) Academy Awards Unique & Artistic Picture* Nominee

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)

I can think of few other silent movies as deservedly lauded and revered, as F.W. Murnau’s silent classic, Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans. It received the award for Best Unique and Artistic Picture, and ended up being the only film to ever receive that award because the category was eliminated the following year. Like The Crowd, the story of Sunrise is simple: A husband and wife living a simple life in the country are pulled apart when the man is seduced by another woman, but brought back together as he tries desperately to earn his wife’s forgiveness, trust, and love. The setting, as we’re told in the opening titles, is “of every place and no place.” The characters do not even have names; they are the Man (George O’Brien), his Wife (Janet Gaynor), and the Woman from the City (Margaret Livingston). These simplicities belie the technical mastery of the language of the moving image to tell a story, convey ideas and themes, and affect audiences.

Murnau did not like the use of intertitles (title cards and dialogue cards) so they are used sparingly, and after a certain point in the film they are not used at all and the story is told purely though images. These images, including the performances of the actors, don’t just show us the plot, they express the inner emotions of the characters. After his romantic encounter with the glamourous Woman from the City, the Man decides to kill his wife. However, his slow, lumbering walk conveys the conflict and guilt he feels. He walks as though the burden of his decision is literally weighing down on his shoulders. He lumbers like Frankenstein’s monster would in James Whale’s 1931 film. Murnau actually had lead weights put in George O’Brien’s shoes to make his steps slow and heavy. We are relieved, naturally, when he does not hurt his Wife, but each of them are devastated by what almost happened.

Sunrise, also like The Crowd, has two distinct halves each with a dramatic shift in tone. The first half of Sunrise feels somber and potentially tragic. The second half, after the Man and Wife reconcile on an excursion to the city across the lake, is romantic and optimistic. In these scenes in the city, we see the Man and Wife from the front whereas in the first half of the film the camera was always at their backs. The Man no longer walks like a golem. They smile and laugh as they walk through the City, holding each other’s arms as though they are the only two people in the world.

Sunrise was the first film F.W. Murnau made after being brought to America by producer William Fox. It was the first film released by Fox with a Movietone soundtrack. It had music, sound effects, and even some unsynchronized words in a crowd scene which audiences would have heard coming from the film itself. However, there were no characters speaking—true “talkies” would come along very soon. Despite the presence of a complete soundtrack, it still uses images first and foremost to convey story and emotion.

The entire film is rich with technical creativity and impressive shots that all enhance the story. The special effects in Sunrise were all done “in-camera,” meaning that they were created using the camera and not added in later. Superimposed images, miniatures, and matte paintings are all done with such precision and inventive flair that they remain impressive today. In one of the most famous scenes in Sunrise we see the backs of the Man and the Woman from the City as they sit together, and visions of the City, bright and carnival-like, appear before them. In another scene, we see the Man, visibly troubled by his decision to get rid of his wife, but wrapped in the ghostly arms of the Woman from the City; her image is first superimposed above him, then appears all around him. Early in the film the camera glides smoothly alongside the Man as he walks through marshy, uneven ground. Murnau and his cinematographers achieved this effect by putting dolly tracks on the ceiling of the set, rather than the ground, so that the camera could easily pass over the uneven terrain. At a time when many films were still a series of static shots of people in rooms, Murnau’s camera seems to fly.

In the modern era, there are many films in which the spectacle of special effects distracts from the story and characters and becomes the focus of the film. The old-school (the first school, actually) in-camera special effects used in Sunrise may seem quaint today, but they are quite technically sophisticated. Using such inventive and impressive special effects to truly enhance the story is a trait which I think will always be rare, but will always be the sign of a quality film and master filmmaker. I think any modern moviegoer would enjoy and appreciate what they see in Sunrise and, fortunately, it is readily available on DVD and Blu-ray. This is a simple story, but not a simple movie. Its dreamlike feel, subtly wondrous effects, and nameless characters turn this story into a fable—something that exists out of time and remains as magical and powerful as ever.

Nominee: Fox

Producer: William Fox

Director: F.W. Murnau

Screenplay: Carl Mayer, from an original theme by Herman Sudermann

Cast: George O’Brien, Janet Gaynor, Margaret Livingston

Release Date: September 23^rd, 1927

Total Nominations: 4, including Unique & Artistic Picture

Wins: Unique & Artistic Picture, Actress-Janet Gaynor, Cinematography-Charles Rosher and Karl Struss

Other Nominations: Art Direction-Rochus Gliese

*The 1st Academy Awards had two categories for Best Picture: Unique & Artistic Picture and Outstanding Picture. The Outstanding Picture category is widely considered to be the forerunner to Best Picture since the Unique & Artistic Picture category was discontinued. Since at the time each category was thought of as equally the top award I have included the Unique & Artistic Picture nominees as Best Picture nominees.

Best Pictures: A Journey Through the Academy Awards Best Picture Nominees and Winners

by A.J.

Cinema Then & Now presents:

Best Pictures

A Journey Through the Academy Awards Best Picture Nominees and Winners

Every February, TCM has 31 Days of Oscar, a month long event in which every film shown on the channel is an Academy Award winner or nominee in at least one category. Last year, the primetime theme each evening was Best Picture Winners and Nominees. In looking at the schedule one thing became very clear: a lot of good movies have lost Best Picture. Another thing I noticed was there were many likely good films that I had not seen or was not even aware existed. There are Best Picture winners that are truly great films (Gone with the Wind), Best Picture winners I’d forgotten about (A Beautiful Mind) or never heard of (Cavalcade), Best Picture losers that are genuine classics and have become a part of our culture (The Wizard of Oz, To Kill a Mockingbird), films I’d forgotten were nominated for Best Picture (The Sixth Sense) … so many movies, each one a part of film history. I’ve seen a lot of classic movies, but there are so many more to see and Best Picture nominees seem to be a good place to start.

With that in mind, just after my 30^th birthday in April of 2015, I began watching every film nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award. As of January 1^st, 2016 there have been 520 films nominated for Best Picture. I’ve been watching the nominated films in chronological order beginning with the 1^st Academy Awards for 1927/28. I’m not going to marathon these films. I’m going to take my time and enjoy every film I can. My goal is to have seen every Best Picture nominee grouped with its other nominees by my 40^th birthday in 2025. The Best Picture nominees for 2015 and onward I will watch as they are released leading up to the Oscars. There are a few films that for various reasons are unavailable to watch so I will not review those films but I will read as much as I can about them and write an overview. For the rest, I will write a review for each nominated film including the winner then make my pick for Best Picture and offer my thoughts on any trends or themes I noticed among the nominees for that particular year.

I love the Oscars. I always have. I haven’t grown cynical about the awards even though I’ve seen great films, actors, actresses, directors, writers, etc. go unrewarded, or not even be nominated. Sometimes the nominee I think should win actually does win, but even if they don’t I still enjoy the awards. The best way I can describe my enthusiasm for the Academy Awards is that the Oscars are my Super Bowl. My excitement isn’t just for the big day, but also everything leading up to ceremony. I’m glad that there is a serious institution and a special night dedicated to honoring the movies. Just being nominated really is an honor and winning, for better or worse, designates a film or person “Best.” It doesn’t matter if the Academy “gets it right.” What matters is that the awards even happen at all.

As the years roll on and new films become old and then classic, every film, good, bad, or worse, becomes a part of film history and if you watched any of those movies you become a part of film history. Movies are the story of us. Hopes and fears, dreams and nightmares, escapism and introspection are held on film waiting for us to relive those moments and emotions. The most important thing about cinema is that we keep watching. There are more and more films every year, so some will slip from our minds or go unseen, but that doesn’t mean they are forgettable.

There are some resources and people I want to acknowledge and thank at the outset: TCM for their website, on demand service, online store, and, most of all, wonderful programming and commitment to showing movies uncut and commercial free. The official history of the Academy Awards, 85 Years of the Oscar by Robert Osborne is my primary resource for information on the awards, Wikipedia.com and IMDB.com have been my online information sources, DVD special features, when available, have been very helpful, and the podcast You Must Remember This by Karina Longworth has been a source of background information on people and studios involved with the making of these movies. This project would not be possible for me to do at all without the great video rental store, Vulcan Video here in Austin, TX. Only a small amount of these movies are available through online services, some were never released on DVD and are only available on VHS. There is no way I could afford to buy all of the nominated films through Amazon.com, but fortunately Vulcan Video has about 95% of all the Best Picture nominees on DVD or VHS, including some that have since gone out of print, and is willing to obtain the films it does not currently have, if they are available on DVD. Also fortunately for me, I am an employee at Vulcan Video and get free rentals. I must thank my boss at Vulcan Video, Bryan Connolly, for suggesting that I write about the Best Picture nominees in addition to watching them. Most of all I must thank my wife and fellow blogger and cinephile, Lani Gonzalez, whose love and knowledge of movies, especially classic movies, has expanded my own love and knowledge of movies, classic and modern, for her editing and proofreading skills, and her continuous, somehow, unending love and support, and for agreeing to watch every Best Picture nominee with me, making this project extra fun.

I have no doubt that not every Best Picture nominee will be top shelf quality, but there is only one way to know for sure. The nominees and winners that truly are good films will make up for the subpar films, and I’m sure that the good films outnumber the mediocre and bad ones. This is going to be a very long term undertaking, but I love movies and I know I’m going to have fun. My real goal is to make as many people as I can aware of great movies they might not have seen or even heard about and maybe look at the ones we all know and love in a new way. It’s going to be a long journey and also a personal journey through over 85 years of Academy Awards Best Picture nominees. Join me, won’t you?

Classic Movie Picks: January 2016

by Lani

Each month, I scour the Turner Classic Movies schedule for upcoming films that I can't miss. The highlights are posted here for your reading and viewing pleasure! (All listed times are Eastern Standard, check your local listings or TCM.com for actual air times in your area. Each day's schedule begins at 6:00 a.m.; if a film airs between midnight and 6 a.m. it is listed on the previous day's programming schedule.)


Happy New Year! Here's to another year of classic movies full of old favorites and new discoveries!

1/1: American Remakes
8 PM - The Magnificent Seven (1960)
10:15 PM - M (1951)
The Magnificent Seven is a western about seven gunman hired to protect a town from ruthless bandits. Based on the Japanese film Seven Samurai directed by Akira Kurosawa, this is an example of a remake that lives up to the original. The change of setting to the American West works quite well and it has a great cast including Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, and James Coburn. A remake of the remake is scheduled to come out in fall of 2016 starring Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, and Ethan Hawke. No idea if they've kept the setting and storyline, but let's hope the new version retains Elmer Bernstein's rousing score for the 1960 film.
M is based on a German film of the same name directed by Fritz Lang and starring Peter Lorre. The German film is a suspenseful, noir-ish story about the manhunt for a murderer. I had no idea there was an American remake starring David Wayne, a Tony award-winning actor who I always enjoy when he shows up in supporting roles on film. I'm interested to see if this version matches the suspense of the original.

1/3, 9:45 PM - Broadcast News (1987)
Writer-director James L. Brooks created this examination of television news whose themes about entertainment vs. journalism are still relevant today. At the center of the story is a love triangle, as an ambitious and headstrong female producer (Holly Hunter) is drawn toward her network's handsome new anchor (William Hurt), while also being admired by a good-hearted, though neurotic, reporter (Albert Brooks). All the main characters are very well-drawn and well-acted. The first time I saw Broadcast News the thing that stood out to me was that the female protagonist was not wholly sympathetic; and for once, she wasn't being asked to choose between an obvious jerk and and obvious nice guy. Both the men are decent people; they are just different people. Mixed among the satire of the media are some truths about relationships: Sometimes you love the wrong person; you can't make someone love you, no matter how much you want them to; being a nice person is often underrated.

Directed by Ida Lupino
1/5, 12 AM - The Bigamist (1953)
1/12, 9:30 PM - Never Fear (1949)
Today, actress-turned-director Ida Lupino is regarded as a filmmaking pioneer. However, during the 1940s and 50s, when the number of women directing films in Hollywood could be counted on one hand, she was considered an oddity. Creating her own production company with her then-husband Collier Young, Lupino made films with a social conscience and storylines which focused on women. As the title suggests, The Bigamist is about a man secretly keeping two families in different cities. It stars Lupino, alongside Joan Fontaine and Edmond O'Brien as the three spouses. In real life, Lupino had at this point divorced Collier Young, who was also the film's screenwriter, but the two continued to produce together. Young had remarried with none other than Joan Fontaine. And so Ida found herself directing, and playing a rival to, her ex-husband's new wife, which seems...awkward. The film is part of a night featuring films restored with support from the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the group of journalists which hands out the Golden Globe Awards each January. Never Fear is the story of a young dancer who contracts polio and how the diagnosis affects her career and relationships. This film was restored by the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Film Archive.
The situation for women in Hollywood has changed shockingly little in the past 60 years. Though women have moved into all levels of the film business, they are by far the minority and the balance of power still weighs heavily towards men. (In fact it's even less equal than it was 17 years ago.) In addition, film studios are still wary of making films about women's lives, despite the fact that female-starring films have been among the most popular of all-time -- from the 1930s when Shirley Temple and Deanna Durbin were the top stars of their respective studios, to recent hits like Frozen and Bridesmaids, not to mention films like Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, and The Sound of Music which are routinely shown in theaters today, decades after their first release. All this is to say that I have a deep admiration for trailblazers like Lupino and hope that very soon her type of "women's pictures" no longer seem daring. 

1/22: The Divine Miss Emma
8 PM - Much Ado About Nothing (1993)
10 PM - Sense and Sensibility (1995)
12:30 AM - Impromptu (1991)
2:30 AM - The Remains of the Day (1993)
Speaking of talented women in film... Emma Thompson has appeared on film and TV steadily for the past 30 years, but she had quite a run of good films in the early 1990s. She won the Best Actress Oscar for Howard's End and followed that up with starring roles in the Shakespeare adaptation Much Ado About Nothing and Remains of the Day, for which she received another Best Actress nomination. In 1995, she scored a major triumph adapting Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility for the screen and starring in the film. She thought she was too old to play Elinor Dashwood -- after all, in the book the character is 19 and Thompson was in her 30s -- but director Ang Lee thought she would be perfect for the part, aged up to 27 in the screenplay so that the idea of Elinor as an old maid would be more plausible to modern audiences. Thompson was nominated as Best Actress again; however, she won the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay making her the first (and possibly only) person to follow up an acting award with one for writing. 
Thompson had a small part in Impromptu which centers on the romance between French author George Sand (Judy Davis) and composer Frederic Chopin (Hugh Grant). I haven't seen this one, but the cast -- which includes not only Thompson, but Julian Sands, Mandy Patinkin, and Bernadette Peters -- should be a treat to watch. The other three films on the schedule tonight are excellent and delightful in their own way -- from Much Ado's exuberance and wit, to the warm heart of Sense, to the melancholia of Remains.